FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Frexit
Frexit
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Talk that if the Eurosceptic French right wing parties win their elections that the French will be more aligned to our British values and way of thinking and perhaps even leave the EU. The French and English may have a closer relationship than ever before. Could this happen?" The Continent turns to the Right as the UK turns to the Left. Just further evidence that the UK and EU are fundamentally misaligned or are operating to different cycles. | |||
"Talk that if the Eurosceptic French right wing parties win their elections that the French will be more aligned to our British values and way of thinking and perhaps even leave the EU. The French and English may have a closer relationship than ever before. Could this happen?" Ain't going to happen, only 11% of French citizens polled recently say France should leave. Penn won't change that. In fact, she won't get her party in to even try to change that. | |||
"Talk that if the Eurosceptic French right wing parties win their elections that the French will be more aligned to our British values and way of thinking and perhaps even leave the EU. The French and English may have a closer relationship than ever before. Could this happen?" wouldn’t suprise me | |||
| |||
| |||
"Never thought British and French values and ways of thinking were ever that close. Frexit not happening. They saw the shit show and damage of Brexit and will not be travelling that path. " I have found the French to hold values similar to myself and have never felt once the faux hatred that is supposed to exist between our nations, rather the opposite. As for the French leaving the EU, why would they when they have 8 borders….. it does not make sense to do so. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Talk that if the Eurosceptic French right wing parties win their elections that the French will be more aligned to our British values and way of thinking and perhaps even leave the EU. The French and English may have a closer relationship than ever before. Could this happen?" No, because they aren’t stupid. | |||
| |||
"Talk that if the Eurosceptic French right wing parties win their elections that the French will be more aligned to our British values and way of thinking and perhaps even leave the EU. The French and English may have a closer relationship than ever before. Could this happen? No, because they aren’t stupid." There's no way they want to replicate the clusterfuck we have. | |||
"Talk that if the Eurosceptic French right wing parties win their elections that the French will be more aligned to our British values and way of thinking and perhaps even leave the EU. The French and English may have a closer relationship than ever before. Could this happen? No, because they aren’t stupid. There's no way they want to replicate the clusterfuck we have. " Unless they want… BLUE PASSPORTS! | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"They saw the damage to the UK made from brexit and has rowed back from this idea." Or they saw the damage Macron the granny-marrying little Napoleon tried to inflict with the help of his Irish lapdog and realised a strong but independent trading relationship would have hurt them far less. | |||
| |||
"The French are never going to leave the EU, they are too heavily invested in it. The amount of control both themselves and their buddies in Berlin have in that organization is worth a lot of money to them." The UK used to have a lot of control too as part of the “big three” | |||
"Talk that if the Eurosceptic French right wing parties win their elections that the French will be more aligned to our British values and way of thinking and perhaps even leave the EU. The French and English may have a closer relationship than ever before. Could this happen? No, because they aren’t stupid. There's no way they want to replicate the clusterfuck we have. Unless they want… BLUE PASSPORTS!" And have them printed in the EU (Poland isn’t it?) | |||
"Talk that if the Eurosceptic French right wing parties win their elections that the French will be more aligned to our British values and way of thinking and perhaps even leave the EU. The French and English may have a closer relationship than ever before. Could this happen? No, because they aren’t stupid. There's no way they want to replicate the clusterfuck we have. Unless they want… BLUE PASSPORTS! And have them printed in the EU (Poland isn’t it?)" Why would Brexit mean that goods can’t be purchased from Europe? I mean I’m doubtful that government procurement is up to it but hopefully they would be inviting tenders from across the globe in future. | |||
"Talk that if the Eurosceptic French right wing parties win their elections that the French will be more aligned to our British values and way of thinking and perhaps even leave the EU. The French and English may have a closer relationship than ever before. Could this happen? No, because they aren’t stupid. There's no way they want to replicate the clusterfuck we have. Unless they want… BLUE PASSPORTS! And have them printed in the EU (Poland isn’t it?) Why would Brexit mean that goods can’t be purchased from Europe? I mean I’m doubtful that government procurement is up to it but hopefully they would be inviting tenders from across the globe in future." Very earnest and serious aren’t you? Shame though that the passports could not have been printed in Britain. Just seems rather ironic off the back of Brexit (previously printed in UK by De La Rue) | |||
"Talk that if the Eurosceptic French right wing parties win their elections that the French will be more aligned to our British values and way of thinking and perhaps even leave the EU. The French and English may have a closer relationship than ever before. Could this happen? No, because they aren’t stupid. There's no way they want to replicate the clusterfuck we have. Unless they want… BLUE PASSPORTS! And have them printed in the EU (Poland isn’t it?)" And we could have had them when we were in the EU. | |||
"The French are never going to leave the EU, they are too heavily invested in it. The amount of control both themselves and their buddies in Berlin have in that organization is worth a lot of money to them. The UK used to have a lot of control too as part of the “big three”" Sorry, on what planet was that? We had lots of control when “Call Me Dave” tried to re-position the UK prior to the Glorious Day of Departure, and as for the various “opt outs” …. I think what you meant to say was France and Germany screwed the rest of the EU for their benefit, expected the rest of us to play nicely and follow the rules while they went about ignoring them. | |||
"The French are never going to leave the EU, they are too heavily invested in it. The amount of control both themselves and their buddies in Berlin have in that organization is worth a lot of money to them. The UK used to have a lot of control too as part of the “big three” Sorry, on what planet was that? We had lots of control when “Call Me Dave” tried to re-position the UK prior to the Glorious Day of Departure, and as for the various “opt outs” …. I think what you meant to say was France and Germany screwed the rest of the EU for their benefit, expected the rest of us to play nicely and follow the rules while they went about ignoring them. " In french schools they have civics classes. Amongst which they learn about what the EU is, how it functions and what role in plays. This is one of the reasons it will be much harder for the French right wing and far right wing parties to convince French people to leave the EU. They have an inherent understanding that was lacking here during the referendum. | |||
" Sorry, on what planet was that? We had lots of control when “Call Me Dave” tried to re-position the UK prior to the Glorious Day of Departure, and as for the various “opt outs” …. I think what you meant to say was France and Germany screwed the rest of the EU for their benefit, expected the rest of us to play nicely and follow the rules while they went about ignoring them. In french schools they have civics classes. Amongst which they learn about what the EU is, how it functions and what role in plays. This is one of the reasons it will be much harder for the French right wing and far right wing parties to convince French people to leave the EU. They have an inherent understanding that was lacking here during the referendum. " Aaah Gestapo-esque propoganda and brainwashing you mean? God forbid people determine the EU is a self-serving gravy train for the “elite”, you might have to go and tell them they have to re-run the odd eferrendum or two for giving the wrong answer, just like they did in Ireland before they removed the dfemocratic process from ratifying treaties altogether when the plebs said “no”. | |||
" Sorry, on what planet was that? We had lots of control when “Call Me Dave” tried to re-position the UK prior to the Glorious Day of Departure, and as for the various “opt outs” …. I think what you meant to say was France and Germany screwed the rest of the EU for their benefit, expected the rest of us to play nicely and follow the rules while they went about ignoring them. In french schools they have civics classes. Amongst which they learn about what the EU is, how it functions and what role in plays. This is one of the reasons it will be much harder for the French right wing and far right wing parties to convince French people to leave the EU. They have an inherent understanding that was lacking here during the referendum. Aaah Gestapo-esque propoganda and brainwashing you mean? " This is exactly what I'm talking about. Understanding what the EU is and how it works is "Gestapo-esque propoganda". An ignorant population is much easier to control. " God forbid people determine the EU is a self-serving gravy train for the “elite”, you might have to go and tell them they have to re-run the odd eferrendum or two for giving the wrong answer, just like they did in Ireland before they removed the dfemocratic process from ratifying treaties altogether when the plebs said “no”. "  | |||
| |||
" Sorry, on what planet was that? We had lots of control when “Call Me Dave” tried to re-position the UK prior to the Glorious Day of Departure, and as for the various “opt outs” …. I think what you meant to say was France and Germany screwed the rest of the EU for their benefit, expected the rest of us to play nicely and follow the rules while they went about ignoring them. In french schools they have civics classes. Amongst which they learn about what the EU is, how it functions and what role in plays. This is one of the reasons it will be much harder for the French right wing and far right wing parties to convince French people to leave the EU. They have an inherent understanding that was lacking here during the referendum. Aaah Gestapo-esque propoganda and brainwashing you mean? God forbid people determine the EU is a self-serving gravy train for the “elite”, you might have to go and tell them they have to re-run the odd eferrendum or two for giving the wrong answer, just like they did in Ireland before they removed the dfemocratic process from ratifying treaties altogether when the plebs said “no”. " Unlike the democratic Brexit referendum where people were fed absolute bullshit to coerce them into voting leave ? | |||
" Unlike the democratic Brexit referendum where people were fed absolute bullshit to coerce them into voting leave ?" I think you will find “Project Fear” tried to actively coerce the British populace into staying. I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) or whether a customs declaration would be necessary to transport goods or not. That was all open to interpretation and so what? Being told that the economy would crash (it didn’t) , the £ would tumble (it didn’t) international law and order would cease because the EU would not longer co-operate (it didn’t happen) the internet would stop working (because of some bollocks about cookies, GDPR and whatever else) was the actual bullshit we were fed, not whether trade would go up or down a fraction or any of the other forseeable consequences. The biggest lie of them all was told by the politicians who told us they would, irresepctive of their personal views at the time, implement Brexit and grip border security and who had fuck all intention of doing any of that. They are going to pay with their seats on Thurs. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer)" Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss!" The short answer is, this is the model used in other European countries with a subsidised model and a mixed economy of provision. Even with type 2 disabetes I would pay less to BUPA each month combined with my private pension than I do in NI contributions. There is a way to make it work without having to force me to pay for other people. | |||
" The short answer is, this is the model used in other European countries with a subsidised model and a mixed economy of provision. Even with type 2 disabetes I would pay less to BUPA each month combined with my private pension than I do in NI contributions. There is a way to make it work without having to force me to pay for other people. " BUPA will not cover pre-existing conditions, so you need a fallback plan. That plan in the NHS. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss!" We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. | |||
| |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance." Why do insurance companies exist? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. Why do insurance companies exist?" Because people like to mitigate their risks. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. Why do insurance companies exist?" As mentioned above to mitigate risk. It is a very good process, I pay a small fee to mitigate the risk of a big fee. Sometimes I will be out of pocket but grateful I have not needed the insurance and if I do need insurance I'm grateful they are picking up the tab. If you look at it as a business making money, you will be correct but what is wrong with that if all parties are happy with the arangement? | |||
" Unlike the democratic Brexit referendum where people were fed absolute bullshit to coerce them into voting leave ? I think you will find “Project Fear” tried to actively coerce the British populace into staying. I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) or whether a customs declaration would be necessary to transport goods or not. That was all open to interpretation and so what? Being told that the economy would crash (it didn’t) , the £ would tumble (it didn’t) international law and order would cease because the EU would not longer co-operate (it didn’t happen) the internet would stop working (because of some bollocks about cookies, GDPR and whatever else) was the actual bullshit we were fed, not whether trade would go up or down a fraction or any of the other forseeable consequences. The biggest lie of them all was told by the politicians who told us they would, irresepctive of their personal views at the time, implement Brexit and grip border security and who had fuck all intention of doing any of that. They are going to pay with their seats on Thurs. " This is my stereotype of a Brexit voter. Still believing even now. Fair play to you. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. Why do insurance companies exist? Because people like to mitigate their risks." No, to make money, silly. That’s their entire reason for existing. Providing insurance is just what they do. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance." If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. Why do insurance companies exist? As mentioned above to mitigate risk. It is a very good process, I pay a small fee to mitigate the risk of a big fee. Sometimes I will be out of pocket but grateful I have not needed the insurance and if I do need insurance I'm grateful they are picking up the tab. If you look at it as a business making money, you will be correct but what is wrong with that if all parties are happy with the arangement? " To mitigate risk. Nice one buuuut…they also mitigate their own risk first to minimise their exposure. Let’s assume you are with BUPA. Let’s assume you have a pre-existing condition. Will they cover that? And/or you develop a condition and BUPA pay for the treatment but you were not fully happy and then the cheeky so-and-sos put increase your premium. Can you move to another company and will they cover your now pre-existing condition? I keep seeing advocates saying “don’t look at the USA model, we could learn from the German or Scandinavian model” well come on then, explain that model and how it works. Sell it to us why that is better and why we should adopt it? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work." Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. " What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. Why do insurance companies exist? As mentioned above to mitigate risk. It is a very good process, I pay a small fee to mitigate the risk of a big fee. Sometimes I will be out of pocket but grateful I have not needed the insurance and if I do need insurance I'm grateful they are picking up the tab. If you look at it as a business making money, you will be correct but what is wrong with that if all parties are happy with the arangement? To mitigate risk. Nice one buuuut…they also mitigate their own risk first to minimise their exposure. Let’s assume you are with BUPA. Let’s assume you have a pre-existing condition. Will they cover that? And/or you develop a condition and BUPA pay for the treatment but you were not fully happy and then the cheeky so-and-sos put increase your premium. Can you move to another company and will they cover your now pre-existing condition? I keep seeing advocates saying “don’t look at the USA model, we could learn from the German or Scandinavian model” well come on then, explain that model and how it works. Sell it to us why that is better and why we should adopt it?" They do increase premiums based on risk, it would be foolish not to. However, it would be highly unlikely the premium would be greater than the cost, therefore making it a better proposition. There is of course another positive of this outcome, people will tend to look after themselves better if they know their actions could cost them money. Obviously not all people would be so forward thinking.... | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work." I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. Why do insurance companies exist? As mentioned above to mitigate risk. It is a very good process, I pay a small fee to mitigate the risk of a big fee. Sometimes I will be out of pocket but grateful I have not needed the insurance and if I do need insurance I'm grateful they are picking up the tab. If you look at it as a business making money, you will be correct but what is wrong with that if all parties are happy with the arangement? To mitigate risk. Nice one buuuut…they also mitigate their own risk first to minimise their exposure. Let’s assume you are with BUPA. Let’s assume you have a pre-existing condition. Will they cover that? And/or you develop a condition and BUPA pay for the treatment but you were not fully happy and then the cheeky so-and-sos put increase your premium. Can you move to another company and will they cover your now pre-existing condition? I keep seeing advocates saying “don’t look at the USA model, we could learn from the German or Scandinavian model” well come on then, explain that model and how it works. Sell it to us why that is better and why we should adopt it? They do increase premiums based on risk, it would be foolish not to. However, it would be highly unlikely the premium would be greater than the cost, therefore making it a better proposition. There is of course another positive of this outcome, people will tend to look after themselves better if they know their actions could cost them money. Obviously not all people would be so forward thinking...." But if that premium increases to a point you can no longer afford? Or you lose your job and can’t pay the premium? What if regardless of looking after yourself better you still develop cancer? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. " The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. " The “market” which is purely driven by financial rather than societal outcomes! Welcome to utopia for the rich and fuck the middle earners. The poor? Who cares! | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit." People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The “market” which is purely driven by financial rather than societal outcomes! Welcome to utopia for the rich and fuck the middle earners. The poor? Who cares!" I love it when you go full lefty  | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse " Ok so the people demand that insurance premiums are lower than they currently pay in NI and stays in line with your level of income. All illnesses regardless of whether they are pre-existing, hereditary, or lifestyle related must be covered and insurance companies cannot refuse cover or penalise you with higher or increasing premiums. There’s probably more but that’ll do for now and I’ll sit and wait for the stampede of enthusiastic providers coming through the door…any…minute…now…? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse " The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. Why do insurance companies exist? Because people like to mitigate their risks. No, to make money, silly. That’s their entire reason for existing. Providing insurance is just what they do." If there is no use for them existing, they wouldn't exist. People see value in them. The only time there is no value and they still exists is when government forces people to get insurance | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. Why do insurance companies exist? Because people like to mitigate their risks. No, to make money, silly. That’s their entire reason for existing. Providing insurance is just what they do. If there is no use for them existing, they wouldn't exist. People see value in them. The only time there is no value and they still exists is when government forces people to get insurance " I’m not saying they have no use, I’m saying the read they exist is to make money. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive." you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market." And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us." I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it." You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? | |||
| |||
"Well, there are only four colours to choose from after all. And the Navy Blue Passport of the UK is by far the best colour of them all. "It looks black! | |||
"Wasn't last week about EU unelected clowns horse trading the top jobs.. ?." Monarchy unelected too. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. Why do insurance companies exist? Because people like to mitigate their risks. No, to make money, silly. That’s their entire reason for existing. Providing insurance is just what they do." So I guess if you don't want them to make money don't use them at your own risk... But I bet you have insurance. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. Why do insurance companies exist? Because people like to mitigate their risks. No, to make money, silly. That’s their entire reason for existing. Providing insurance is just what they do. So I guess if you don't want them to make money don't use them at your own risk... But I bet you have insurance. " You can’t get a mortgage without home insurance. You’re really not getting the point though. | |||
"Wasn't last week about EU unelected clowns horse trading the top jobs.. ?." Did you vote Sunak for PM ? | |||
| |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do?" It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind." Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”?" We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon "Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. Plus I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. Plus I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all."These are my thoughts exactly, I’d like to hear about the system that will provide a better return on investment and still provide a service for all. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all."We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together. As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. Plus I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
These are my thoughts exactly, I’d like to hear about the system that will provide a better return on investment and still provide a service for all."No one cares about the total amount of investment. They care about the amount of investment for a poor return. Are people so polarised that they just don't listen to what others say? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it. "I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. Plus I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
These are my thoughts exactly, I’d like to hear about the system that will provide a better return on investment and still provide a service for all.
No one cares about the total amount of investment. They care about the amount of investment for a poor return.
Are people so polarised that they just don't listen to what others say?"I don’t think that is true. Many say the budget it too high. | |||
"I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?" Reduce waste. I needed a CT scan last week. Booking department called and arranged it. All OK. Then said that they would send a letter in the post - I asked for it on the NHS app instead but their department is not connected so it was not possible. Letter arrived day of scan. When I went for the scan I went to the X-Ray department reception only to be told to go to the CT reception (literally a few metres away in the same room). Two reception desks in the same room, with more staff than patients. Scan itself was very efficient. Two days after the scan a letter appeared on my NHS app saying that I would be called in for a scan, and explaining what it was. Letter dictated a week before it appeared on the app. Today in the post, a copy of the same letter arrived (letter also CCd to GP). So, while the actual scan was good and efficient, the peripheral processes are completely wasteful. I have a similar experience every time so multiplied by the number of patients this will be a significant cost. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. Plus I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
These are my thoughts exactly, I’d like to hear about the system that will provide a better return on investment and still provide a service for all.
No one cares about the total amount of investment. They care about the amount of investment for a poor return.
Are people so polarised that they just don't listen to what others say?
I don’t think that is true. Many say the budget it too high. "If the system was performing perfectly we wouldn't be having a conversation about money. Guaranteed. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved? "The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff. | |||
"I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved? Reduce waste. I needed a CT scan last week. Booking department called and arranged it. All OK. Then said that they would send a letter in the post - I asked for it on the NHS app instead but their department is not connected so it was not possible. Letter arrived day of scan. When I went for the scan I went to the X-Ray department reception only to be told to go to the CT reception (literally a few metres away in the same room). Two reception desks in the same room, with more staff than patients. Scan itself was very efficient. Two days after the scan a letter appeared on my NHS app saying that I would be called in for a scan, and explaining what it was. Letter dictated a week before it appeared on the app. Today in the post, a copy of the same letter arrived (letter also CCd to GP). So, while the actual scan was good and efficient, the peripheral processes are completely wasteful. I have a similar experience every time so multiplied by the number of patients this will be a significant cost." That is pitiful and a great example (not great for you obv). Why can’t stuff like that be resolved? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. Plus I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
These are my thoughts exactly, I’d like to hear about the system that will provide a better return on investment and still provide a service for all.
No one cares about the total amount of investment. They care about the amount of investment for a poor return.
Are people so polarised that they just don't listen to what others say?
I don’t think that is true. Many say the budget it too high.
If the system was performing perfectly we wouldn't be having a conversation about money. Guaranteed. "But, and I an someone who thinks we should keep the (better) NHS, we hear too much about inefficiencies (one example in this thread) so surely throwing money at it isn’t the way to go? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff. "I don’t know enough to understand whether all the non clinical jobs are actually needed. But personally if outcomes were improved then I would support better pay and conditions for clinical staff (doctors and nurses). I want them rested, happy, focused on me not worrying about their bills. | |||
| |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff. "Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. Plus I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
These are my thoughts exactly, I’d like to hear about the system that will provide a better return on investment and still provide a service for all.
No one cares about the total amount of investment. They care about the amount of investment for a poor return.
Are people so polarised that they just don't listen to what others say?
I don’t think that is true. Many say the budget it too high.
If the system was performing perfectly we wouldn't be having a conversation about money. Guaranteed.
But, and I an someone who thinks we should keep the (better) NHS, we hear too much about inefficiencies (one example in this thread) so surely throwing money at it isn’t the way to go?"Which is exactly what I said. I'd only be willing to throw money at something at it if it was 'fixed'. I have zero interest in giving them more money if it continues as is. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?"If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer? We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists. "If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?"Are you actually being serious? How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator? There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number. "Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?"I do. Why are they needed in the NHS? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
"If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS."I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you. Come on, here's your chance. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance. "That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed? Please be specific. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific."This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions. This is quite typical of you though, isn't it. You're the one championing them, tell us why. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
"You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against."I think you've lost control of what you're trying to argue about. You're the one who started this shit. I'll repeat. Get rid of a load of non clinical staff. They are not needed. If you want to keep them, make your argument. If you don't want to or can't, likely the latter then give it a fucking rest. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against.
I think you've lost control of what you're trying to argue about. You're the one who started this shit.
I'll repeat. Get rid of a load of non clinical staff. They are not needed.
If you want to keep them, make your argument. If you don't want to or can't, likely the latter then give it a fucking rest. "I don’t need to champion them, they have jobs already, if you want to get rid of them you need to justify that. I think what’s happened here is that you’ve spouted a load of nonsense about something you know nothing about, then when you’ve been asked to provide detail you’ve shit your pants. Now you’ve doubled down because you don’t want to admit you’re out of your depth. So once again, I implore you, tell me what these people you say aren’t needed do, and explain why they aren’t needed. Otherwise, leave this sort of thing to the people who know what they’er talking about. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against.
I think you've lost control of what you're trying to argue about. You're the one who started this shit.
I'll repeat. Get rid of a load of non clinical staff. They are not needed.
If you want to keep them, make your argument. If you don't want to or can't, likely the latter then give it a fucking rest.
I don’t need to champion them, they have jobs already, if you want to get rid of them you need to justify that.
I think what’s happened here is that you’ve spouted a load of nonsense about something you know nothing about, then when you’ve been asked to provide detail you’ve shit your pants.
Now you’ve doubled down because you don’t want to admit you’re out of your depth.
So once again, I implore you, tell me what these people you say aren’t needed do, and explain why they aren’t needed.
Otherwise, leave this sort of thing to the people who know what they’er talking about."You clearly have no idea how business works (yes the NHS is a business). I don't need to justify removing them for their positions if they're positions are no longer required. You keep telling us you know what you're talking about but never provide any answers. I'm giving you the opportunity. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against.
I think you've lost control of what you're trying to argue about. You're the one who started this shit.
I'll repeat. Get rid of a load of non clinical staff. They are not needed.
If you want to keep them, make your argument. If you don't want to or can't, likely the latter then give it a fucking rest.
I don’t need to champion them, they have jobs already, if you want to get rid of them you need to justify that.
I think what’s happened here is that you’ve spouted a load of nonsense about something you know nothing about, then when you’ve been asked to provide detail you’ve shit your pants.
Now you’ve doubled down because you don’t want to admit you’re out of your depth.
So once again, I implore you, tell me what these people you say aren’t needed do, and explain why they aren’t needed.
Otherwise, leave this sort of thing to the people who know what they’er talking about.
You clearly have no idea how business works (yes the NHS is a business). I don't need to justify removing them for their positions if they're positions are no longer required.
You keep telling us you know what you're talking about but never provide any answers. I'm giving you the opportunity. "You have failed to answer why they are no longer required, what effect will there no longer being in their roles have, and why? It’s ok to apologise and say you don’t know, it’s less embarrassing than your current approach. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against.
I think you've lost control of what you're trying to argue about. You're the one who started this shit.
I'll repeat. Get rid of a load of non clinical staff. They are not needed.
If you want to keep them, make your argument. If you don't want to or can't, likely the latter then give it a fucking rest.
I don’t need to champion them, they have jobs already, if you want to get rid of them you need to justify that.
I think what’s happened here is that you’ve spouted a load of nonsense about something you know nothing about, then when you’ve been asked to provide detail you’ve shit your pants.
Now you’ve doubled down because you don’t want to admit you’re out of your depth.
So once again, I implore you, tell me what these people you say aren’t needed do, and explain why they aren’t needed.
Otherwise, leave this sort of thing to the people who know what they’er talking about.
You clearly have no idea how business works (yes the NHS is a business). I don't need to justify removing them for their positions if they're positions are no longer required.
You keep telling us you know what you're talking about but never provide any answers. I'm giving you the opportunity.
You have failed to answer why they are no longer required, what effect will there no longer being in their roles have, and why?
It’s ok to apologise and say you don’t know, it’s less embarrassing than your current approach."We're making changes to the business and those roles are no longer required. Again, do you know how business works? I do know, they were never required in the first place. New CEO, new structure. I'm not embarrassed one bit. I'm gonna leave this here as I highly doubt you'll provide an answer to the one question I've asked. Typically, you instead wanna play Spanish Inquisition, which I won't fall for. | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against.
I think you've lost control of what you're trying to argue about. You're the one who started this shit.
I'll repeat. Get rid of a load of non clinical staff. They are not needed.
If you want to keep them, make your argument. If you don't want to or can't, likely the latter then give it a fucking rest.
I don’t need to champion them, they have jobs already, if you want to get rid of them you need to justify that.
I think what’s happened here is that you’ve spouted a load of nonsense about something you know nothing about, then when you’ve been asked to provide detail you’ve shit your pants.
Now you’ve doubled down because you don’t want to admit you’re out of your depth.
So once again, I implore you, tell me what these people you say aren’t needed do, and explain why they aren’t needed.
Otherwise, leave this sort of thing to the people who know what they’er talking about.
You clearly have no idea how business works (yes the NHS is a business). I don't need to justify removing them for their positions if they're positions are no longer required.
You keep telling us you know what you're talking about but never provide any answers. I'm giving you the opportunity.
You have failed to answer why they are no longer required, what effect will there no longer being in their roles have, and why?
It’s ok to apologise and say you don’t know, it’s less embarrassing than your current approach.
We're making changes to the business and those roles are no longer required.
Again, do you know how business works?
I do know, they were never required in the first place. New CEO, new structure.
I'm not embarrassed one bit. I'm gonna leave this here as I highly doubt you'll provide an answer to the one question I've asked. Typically, you instead wanna play Spanish Inquisition, which I won't fall for."I’ll leave it there because it was funny watching you flounder for a while but I’m getting embarrassed for you now. You had a quick Google for some job roles you think sound like they are nonsense then went in gung ho about it without having the first idea how to back it up, and embarrassed yourself. Use this as a learning experience x | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against.
I think you've lost control of what you're trying to argue about. You're the one who started this shit.
I'll repeat. Get rid of a load of non clinical staff. They are not needed.
If you want to keep them, make your argument. If you don't want to or can't, likely the latter then give it a fucking rest.
I don’t need to champion them, they have jobs already, if you want to get rid of them you need to justify that.
I think what’s happened here is that you’ve spouted a load of nonsense about something you know nothing about, then when you’ve been asked to provide detail you’ve shit your pants.
Now you’ve doubled down because you don’t want to admit you’re out of your depth.
So once again, I implore you, tell me what these people you say aren’t needed do, and explain why they aren’t needed.
Otherwise, leave this sort of thing to the people who know what they’er talking about.
You clearly have no idea how business works (yes the NHS is a business). I don't need to justify removing them for their positions if they're positions are no longer required.
You keep telling us you know what you're talking about but never provide any answers. I'm giving you the opportunity.
You have failed to answer why they are no longer required, what effect will there no longer being in their roles have, and why?
It’s ok to apologise and say you don’t know, it’s less embarrassing than your current approach.
We're making changes to the business and those roles are no longer required.
Again, do you know how business works?
I do know, they were never required in the first place. New CEO, new structure.
I'm not embarrassed one bit. I'm gonna leave this here as I highly doubt you'll provide an answer to the one question I've asked. Typically, you instead wanna play Spanish Inquisition, which I won't fall for."No one wants the Spanish Inquisition | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against.
I think you've lost control of what you're trying to argue about. You're the one who started this shit.
I'll repeat. Get rid of a load of non clinical staff. They are not needed.
If you want to keep them, make your argument. If you don't want to or can't, likely the latter then give it a fucking rest.
I don’t need to champion them, they have jobs already, if you want to get rid of them you need to justify that.
I think what’s happened here is that you’ve spouted a load of nonsense about something you know nothing about, then when you’ve been asked to provide detail you’ve shit your pants.
Now you’ve doubled down because you don’t want to admit you’re out of your depth.
So once again, I implore you, tell me what these people you say aren’t needed do, and explain why they aren’t needed.
Otherwise, leave this sort of thing to the people who know what they’er talking about.
You clearly have no idea how business works (yes the NHS is a business). I don't need to justify removing them for their positions if they're positions are no longer required.
You keep telling us you know what you're talking about but never provide any answers. I'm giving you the opportunity.
You have failed to answer why they are no longer required, what effect will there no longer being in their roles have, and why?
It’s ok to apologise and say you don’t know, it’s less embarrassing than your current approach.
We're making changes to the business and those roles are no longer required.
Again, do you know how business works?
I do know, they were never required in the first place. New CEO, new structure.
I'm not embarrassed one bit. I'm gonna leave this here as I highly doubt you'll provide an answer to the one question I've asked. Typically, you instead wanna play Spanish Inquisition, which I won't fall for.
I’ll leave it there because it was funny watching you flounder for a while but I’m getting embarrassed for you now.
You had a quick Google for some job roles you think sound like they are nonsense then went in gung ho about it without having the first idea how to back it up, and embarrassed yourself.
Use this as a learning experience x"I don't understand what it is they do even after reading a job vacancy for this position but at £110k to £115k I very much hope they are essential | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against.
I think you've lost control of what you're trying to argue about. You're the one who started this shit.
I'll repeat. Get rid of a load of non clinical staff. They are not needed.
If you want to keep them, make your argument. If you don't want to or can't, likely the latter then give it a fucking rest.
I don’t need to champion them, they have jobs already, if you want to get rid of them you need to justify that.
I think what’s happened here is that you’ve spouted a load of nonsense about something you know nothing about, then when you’ve been asked to provide detail you’ve shit your pants.
Now you’ve doubled down because you don’t want to admit you’re out of your depth.
So once again, I implore you, tell me what these people you say aren’t needed do, and explain why they aren’t needed.
Otherwise, leave this sort of thing to the people who know what they’er talking about.
You clearly have no idea how business works (yes the NHS is a business). I don't need to justify removing them for their positions if they're positions are no longer required.
You keep telling us you know what you're talking about but never provide any answers. I'm giving you the opportunity.
You have failed to answer why they are no longer required, what effect will there no longer being in their roles have, and why?
It’s ok to apologise and say you don’t know, it’s less embarrassing than your current approach.
We're making changes to the business and those roles are no longer required.
Again, do you know how business works?
I do know, they were never required in the first place. New CEO, new structure.
I'm not embarrassed one bit. I'm gonna leave this here as I highly doubt you'll provide an answer to the one question I've asked. Typically, you instead wanna play Spanish Inquisition, which I won't fall for.
I’ll leave it there because it was funny watching you flounder for a while but I’m getting embarrassed for you now.
You had a quick Google for some job roles you think sound like they are nonsense then went in gung ho about it without having the first idea how to back it up, and embarrassed yourself.
Use this as a learning experience x
I don't understand what it is they do even after reading a job vacancy for this position but at £110k to £115k I very much hope they are essential"Having read an advert, would you think it was an essential role within the NHS? | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against.
I think you've lost control of what you're trying to argue about. You're the one who started this shit.
I'll repeat. Get rid of a load of non clinical staff. They are not needed.
If you want to keep them, make your argument. If you don't want to or can't, likely the latter then give it a fucking rest.
I don’t need to champion them, they have jobs already, if you want to get rid of them you need to justify that.
I think what’s happened here is that you’ve spouted a load of nonsense about something you know nothing about, then when you’ve been asked to provide detail you’ve shit your pants.
Now you’ve doubled down because you don’t want to admit you’re out of your depth.
So once again, I implore you, tell me what these people you say aren’t needed do, and explain why they aren’t needed.
Otherwise, leave this sort of thing to the people who know what they’er talking about.
You clearly have no idea how business works (yes the NHS is a business). I don't need to justify removing them for their positions if they're positions are no longer required.
You keep telling us you know what you're talking about but never provide any answers. I'm giving you the opportunity.
You have failed to answer why they are no longer required, what effect will there no longer being in their roles have, and why?
It’s ok to apologise and say you don’t know, it’s less embarrassing than your current approach.
We're making changes to the business and those roles are no longer required.
Again, do you know how business works?
I do know, they were never required in the first place. New CEO, new structure.
I'm not embarrassed one bit. I'm gonna leave this here as I highly doubt you'll provide an answer to the one question I've asked. Typically, you instead wanna play Spanish Inquisition, which I won't fall for.
I’ll leave it there because it was funny watching you flounder for a while but I’m getting embarrassed for you now.
You had a quick Google for some job roles you think sound like they are nonsense then went in gung ho about it without having the first idea how to back it up, and embarrassed yourself.
Use this as a learning experience x
I don't understand what it is they do even after reading a job vacancy for this position but at £110k to £115k I very much hope they are essential
Having read an advert, would you think it was an essential role within the NHS?"To be honest I have read the advert twice and still none the wiser but much of the terminology is foreign to me. Here is a bit of the advert : The aim is for this post to provide leadership for lived experience practice; bring the experiential lens to Trust Board decision-making, and facilitate the cultural changes needed to infuse and propagate best practice around shared decision-making, so it can become evident at every level, from Board to the ward and therapy/treatment room. Doesn't sound like someone who is going to be dirt treating you if your ill but as said I am lost to what they actually do and can only hope that at that salary, it is essential | |||
"I could give a fuck about whether £350m could or should go into the NHS (no, provatise the fucking lot would be my answer) Love this line of thinking when in another thread you say you cannot afford private healthcare? I keep asking this question to people advocating the removal of the NHS and replacement with an insurance based system: 1. What about pre-existing conditions? 2. What about Hereditary conditions? 3. What about Lifestyle related conditions? 4. Conditions that are a byproduct but connected to any of the three above? 5. What about maximum value of cover per year? 6. What if you exceed that cover but still need treatment? 7. What do you do if having made claims the following year your premium goes up and you can no longer afford it? 8. What if the cost of the treatment or drugs you need increases and can no longer be covered? 9. Based on above what if you wanted to change insurance provider? So many issues to resolve and be written into law. If you were the insurance provider then the points above would no pass the risk test or they will constantly make a loss! We have been around the houses on this a few times. If we could get away from being trapped in the NHS, insurance policies would become far wider in the coverage and as mentioned we can begin to look at the rest of the world for best practice. We were the envy of the world when the NHS was rolled out, now we are not, there is nothing stopping us becoming the envy of the world again with a mixture of private and public healthcare that is fit for the present time, including insurance. If you mean by going around these houses that I have raised these questions before (as I say above) but so far nobody has answered or provided a solution beyond “yes these are good questions that need answering” then yes you are correct. Until these questions are answered I say NO THANKS. Sorry to say this NotMe but your answer feels like an empty platitude. The questions must be answered to determine how a new system would work. Of course they need answering, but the first step is to create the environment we need for the laws and policies to be developed. Only then we will we know we have the right cover and terms. What you seem to be proposing s getting rid of the old system and trusting the market to make the new system work. I would expect the NHS to be A&E only, and the market will decide what it needs above and beyond that. The market is, of course, famous for putting people before profit. People decide the market through demand, not the other way, unless you allow the government to dictate the market place through taxation and choice disappears with no recourse The people have never decided the market, the companies will only insure people they don’t think they will make a loss on. They will be under no obligation to offer insurance to anyone they don’t want to, so they simply won’t offer it to people they deem too risky, or the offer they make to them will be prohibitively expensive. you have misunderstood what I mean. Market place as in what other services would be available in private healthcare if A&E was covered by the NHS. These services would be driven by demand. Not insurance as a market. And again these would only be services that private healthcare companies could make money from. Need a day case procedure with no requirement for overnight care? Great we’ll provide that. Have a chronic illness that will require expensive medication and repeated admissions to hospital? Nah, not for us. I think you will find simple market forces will determine all the above, you don't need the government to tell us what is and isn't required, we are capable of working that out ourselves, especially when we pay for it. You just don’t get it, do you? Some healthcare is pretty cheap. A quick daycare procedure with no need for rehab is cheap and easy. Cancer treatment, chemo or radiotherapy (or both) with surgery, ITU and hospital based recovery, plus extensive rehab, is massively expensive. There is no way to make a profit on it. Looking at it from a purely financial point of view you would not touch it with a barge pole. Yet 50% of us will get cancer, what do you propose these people do? It doesn't matter what I suggest, you wont see merit in anything other than the NHS. That is your view and you are not going to change your mind. Have you considered that no one has yet come up with an idea to replace the NHS other than “let’s have a mixture of NHS and insurance - then some magic happens”? We are north and south on this subject, I can’t see how the NHS can survive with such a poor output on investment, and you can’t see how anything other than the NHS can deliver the services. Let’s leave it there, it isn’t going anywhere soon
Let’s not
I really want to hear about an alternative model that can give the population of the UK better outcomes for less money without penalising the poor. I really need my list of points answered so I can see a fair way forward for all.
We keep seeing this being asked, specifically 'for less money'. Why for less money when we have the left saying they want more money spent on health? Those 2 things don't work together.
As I said the other day, if we can fix the NHS, whatever way, I'll happily see more money spent. If its not gonna change, then I don't want to see any more money thrown at it.
I don’t want to see more money spent. I want the money spent better. How can that be achieved?
The first and most obvious thing is staffing costs. They're way too high and there's way too many non clinical staff.
Which non clinical staff would you get rid of, and who would do the work they currently do?
If I was CEO I'd be able to answer, can you give us an answer?
We've already heard one a couple of hours ago about receptionists.
If you don’t know what non clinical staff there are, or what they do, then how do you know there are too many non clinical staff?
Are you actually being serious?
How about Director of Lived Experience? Or maybe Car Park Environment Officers? Or maybe Arts in Hospital Coordinator?
There's shit loads of non clinical that are unnecessary. I just don't know the exact number.
Do you know what a director of lived experience, or an arts in hospital coordinator does?
I do. Why are they needed in the NHS?
If you know what they do then you’ll understand why they are needed in the NHS.
I don't feel they are needed. I'm asking you.
Come on, here's your chance.
That’s great, can you explain why you think they aren’t needed?
Please be specific.
This is all you've got? To answer my questions with your own questions.
This is quite typical of you though, isn't it.
You're the one championing them, tell us why.
You’re the one who says they aren’t needed but is unable to say why, it’s almost as if you have no idea and are looking for me to say something you can latch on to and argue against.
I think you've lost control of what you're trying to argue about. You're the one who started this shit.
I'll repeat. Get rid of a load of non clinical staff. They are not needed.
If you want to keep them, make your argument. If you don't want to or can't, likely the latter then give it a fucking rest.
I don’t need to champion them, they have jobs already, if you want to get rid of them you need to justify that.
I think what’s happened here is that you’ve spouted a load of nonsense about something you know nothing about, then when you’ve been asked to provide detail you’ve shit your pants.
Now you’ve doubled down because you don’t want to admit you’re out of your depth.
So once again, I implore you, tell me what these people you say aren’t needed do, and explain why they aren’t needed.
Otherwise, leave this sort of thing to the people who know what they’er talking about.
You clearly have no idea how business works (yes the NHS is a business). I don't need to justify removing them for their positions if they're positions are no longer required.
You keep telling us you know what you're talking about but never provide any answers. I'm giving you the opportunity.
You have failed to answer why they are no longer required, what effect will there no longer being in their roles have, and why?
It’s ok to apologise and say you don’t know, it’s less embarrassing than your current approach.
We're making changes to the business and those roles are no longer required.
Again, do you know how business works?
I do know, they were never required in the first place. New CEO, new structure.
I'm not embarrassed one bit. I'm gonna leave this here as I highly doubt you'll provide an answer to the one question I've asked. Typically, you instead wanna play Spanish Inquisition, which I won't fall for.
I’ll leave it there because it was funny watching you flounder for a while but I’m getting embarrassed for you now.
You had a quick Google for some job roles you think sound like they are nonsense then went in gung ho about it without having the first idea how to back it up, and embarrassed yourself.
Use this as a learning experience x
I don't understand what it is they do even after reading a job vacancy for this position but at £110k to £115k I very much hope they are essential
Having read an advert, would you think it was an essential role within the NHS?
To be honest I have read the advert twice and still none the wiser but much of the terminology is foreign to me. Here is a bit of the advert :
The aim is for this post to provide leadership for lived experience practice; bring the experiential lens to Trust Board decision-making, and facilitate the cultural changes needed to infuse and propagate best practice around shared decision-making, so it can become evident at every level, from Board to the ward and therapy/treatment room.
Doesn't sound like someone who is going to be dirt treating you if your ill but as said I am lost to what they actually do and can only hope that at that salary, it is essential
"Infuse and propagate. Is that what the tea lady does? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
